HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-8051
TONY DOUGLAS SAMENTO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
V. : CIVIL ACTION – LAW
: NO. 09-8051 CIVIL
NANCI MARIKO SAMENTO, :
Defendant : PACSES CASE: 964111413
IN RE: EXCEPTIONS TO THE MASTER’S REPORT
OPINION AND ORDER
In this case, the plaintiff, Tony D. Samento (hereinafter “Husband”), has filed exceptions
to the Support Master’s Report and Recommendation of the Interim Order of Court dated
February 1, 2011. He asserts that the Support Master incorrectly calculated alimony pendent lite
(APL) owed to the defendant (hereinafter “Wife”), Nancy M. Samento. The facts and procedural
history of the matter are as follows.
Husband filed a complaint in divorce on November 19, 2009. Husband and Wife have
five children. Two of those children, Aidan and Elijah, are minors subject to child support. R. at
1
4. Aidan and Elijah and two adult children, Brianne and Tianna, live with Husband at 1066
Park Place, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. R. at 4. The other adult child, Ciara, resides at
Husband’s office at 922 Park Place, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. R. at 4-5. Wife currently
resides at 1203 Cross Creek Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. R. at 50. According to
Wife’s testimony, she vacated the marital home and moved to her current residence as part of a
1
At the time of the support master proceedings, a third child, Ciara, was a minor for support purposes.
She was an eighteen-year-old senior in high school.
negotiated agreement entered on July 15, 2010. R. at 51. Another stipulation in the agreement
2
was that Wife would receive an increase in APL from $1,500.00 to $2,500.00 each month.
Wife is employed at Fox Nursing Home, in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, where she
earns $26.00 per hour as a full-time nurse. R. at 54. Based on her testimony, Wife typically
works thirty-six hours per week, which amounts to $1,872.00 in gross bi-weekly income. R. at
54. However, at the support master proceedings, Wife presented only one bi-weekly pay stub
(with overtime) that indicated gross earnings of $2,494.50. R. at 56.
Husband is the sole shareholder of an S Corporation, Samento Industrial Training
Systems. R. at 6. Husband’s company provides safety training to companies that must comply
with national labor regulations. R. at 32. Husband’s clients include businesses from private
industry and universities that receive the Pennsylvania State Grant WEDnet. R. at 7. Husband’s
2010 corporate tax return specified his income as follows: $60,043.00 in salary, $15,000.00 in
director’s fees, $35,792.00 in corporate distribution income, and $42,000.00 in gross rental
income. Pl.’s Ex. 1. Wife argues that a $91,559.00 depreciation deduction and a $90,045.00
reduction in a “shareholders” loan on Husband’s 2010 corporate tax return should also be treated
as income. Def.’s Br. Resp. to Pl.’s Exceptions to Supp. Master’s Rep. and Rcmd.
At the support master’s proceedings, Husband testified to recent financial difficulties. He
stated that his gross receipts on his corporate tax return were $547,000.00 in 2009 compared to
$306,000.00 in 2010. R. at 34. Husband also presented three e-mails to show that he expected
2
Wife filed a Counterclaim to the Divorce Complaint on December 16, 2009, requesting this Court to
grant her APL. On January 28, 2010, the Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr., awarded $2,112.00 per month in
APL. Husband appealed the order. On March 31, 2010, the Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr., entered
another order that required Husband to pay $1,500.00 per month in APL. That order was entered
pursuant to an agreement reached by Husband and Wife.
2
less income in 2011: $13,000.00 less from Shippensburg University and uncertain reductions
34
from Bloomsburg University and Mansfield University. R. at 9. Husband also testified that
several Luzerne County universities would no longer participate in the WEDnet program in
2011. R. at 9.
Husband further testified that his monthly expenses were $15,255.21. R. at 45. He
explained that he combined personal and corporate expenditures for this estimate because his
finances were “melded together.” R. at 14. The estimate, according to Husband, did not include
mortgage payments. Husband’s mortgage payment for the marital residence is $3,443.70
without taxes. R. at 47. Although the record includes Husband’s itemized expense statement, it
5
does not corroborate the $15,255.21 estimate.
Similar to Husband’s report, Wife’s expense statement does not corroborate her
testimony. Wife indicated that her monthly expenses totaled approximately $5,600.00. Def.’s
Ex. 8. On cross-examination, however, Wife admitted that her expense statement was incorrect.
R. at 65. After re-itemizing her expenses, Wife testified that she spent approximately $1,942.61
each month excluding phone or internet costs. R. at 67.
3
The Bloomsburg University e-mail, dated September 9, 2010, stated that Husband should expect
approximately $18,900.00 in 2011. Husband asserted that this letter represented at least $82,000.00 less
income for 2011. However, the e-mail also stated, “it is impossible . . . to predict the amount of
unscheduled training with any accuracy at this time.” Pl.’s Ex. 3. The record does not contain previous
earning statements from Bloomsburg University to corroborate Husband’s assertion.
4
The Mansfield University e-mail, dated September 9, 2010, stated that Mansfield would not participate
in the WEDnet program in 2011. However, the e-mail also stated, “[Mansfield’s] existing client loads
were going to be reviewed and redistributed to other partners across the state who will be administering
the [WEDnet] program.” Pl.’s Ex. 3. It is unclear whether Husband expected work from those clients.
5
The expense statement listed a total of $15,255.21. Pl.’s Ex. 4. Based on the report’s listed
expenditures, however, the total should be $3,156.41. It is unclear from the record how Husband arrived
at his estimated figure.
3
Wife also stated that her legal fees totaled more than $9,000.00 for present counsel. R. at
52; Def.’s Ex. 7. Wife further asserted that she could not afford health insurance. R. at 59. The
record indicates that two options were available to Wife through her employment that would
have cost either $234.92 or $144.06 bi-weekly for Wife and children. Def.’s Ex. 10. According
to Wife, health insurance is needed to obtain counseling for herself and her children. Without
such counseling, Wife cannot earn visitation rights with her children who remain in Husband’s
6
sole custody. R. at 58.
Husband filed a petition to modify APL on October 22, 2010. Following the Support
Master’s Report and Recommendation, dated January 31, 2011, this Court entered an Interim
Order of Court that required Husband to pay $1,194.00 in APL each month, effective October
22, 2010. Interim Order of Ct., Feb. 1, 2011. The support master (hereinafter “master”) found
that modification was appropriate because Husband presented evidence of a reduction in his
income for fiscal year 2010-2011. Supp. Master’s Rep. and Rcmd. at 2. The master
subsequently modified the $2,500.00 APL agreement using the Uniform Support Guidelines
(hereinafter “Guidelines”), Rules 1910.16-1 to 1910.16-6 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil
Procedure.
To calculate APL, the master first determined the gross monthly incomes of Husband and
7
Wife. Husband’s gross monthly income was approximately $12,736.00. Wife’s income was
6
At the time of Husband’s testimony, he had applied for CHIP benefits for his two minor children Aidan
and Elijah. R. at 40.
7
Husband’s 2010 W-2 and corporate return stated his yearly income as follows: $60,043.00 in salary,
$15,000.00 in director’s fees, $35,792.00 in corporate distribution income, and $42,000.00 in gross rental
income. The master divided this income by twelve for a monthly estimate.
4
8
approximately $4,392.00. Based on the filing status of Husband (head of household with three
dependents) and Wife (married/separate), the master determined that their net monthly incomes
were $9,255.00 and $3,292.00, respectively. The master then concluded that Rule 1910.16-4(e)
of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure set forth the appropriate method for calculating
APL because Husband was the custodial parent of three minor children. Rule 1910.16-4(e)
offsets a custodial parent's obligation for APL with a non-custodial parent's obligation for child
support.
The master found APL to equal $1,194.00 using a four-step procedure. First, the master
9
calculated APL irrespective of child support and found it to equal $2,385.00. Second, the
master added the APL obligation to the non-custodial parent’s (Wife) net monthly income and
10
subtracted it from the custodial parent’s (Husband) income. Step two accounts for the
respective incomes of Husband and Wife with APL payments. As the third step, the master
calculated Wife’s child support obligation. Wife was required to pay $1,191.00 in child support
11
for three dependent children. See Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-3. As the final step, Wife’s child support
12
obligation (step three) was deducted from Husband’s APL obligation (step one).
8
The Support Master’s Report does not explain how this figure was determined. Wife stated that she
works 36 hours per week at a rate of $26.00 per hour ($1872.00 bi-weekly) and that she occasionally
works overtime. At the support master proceedings, Wife presented only one bi-weekly pay stub
($2,494.50 with overtime). The master arrived at a bi-weekly estimate of $2,196.00.
9
This formula is set forth in Rule 1910.16-4(a). APL equals 40 percent of the difference between the net
monthly incomes of Husband and Wife. The equation is [($9,255.00 – $3,292.00) * (0.40) = $2,385.00].
10
The equation is [$3,292.00 + $2,385.00 = $5,677.00] for Wife and [$9,255.00 – $2,385.00 =
$6,870.00] for Husband.
11
Step two’s adjusted income figures are added [$5,677.00 + $6,870.00 = $12,547.00] for the combined
monthly income of Husband and Wife. Based on the Basic Child Support Schedule, the total obligation
for both parents would be $2,632.00. See Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-3. Because Wife’s adjusted income
($5,677.00) is 45.25% of the combined monthly income ($12,547.00), she is obligated to pay $1,190.98.
The equation is [($2,632.00) * (0.4525) = $1,190.98].
12
The equation is [$2,385.00 – $1,190.98 = $1,194.02].
5
On February 11, 2011, Husband filed exceptions to the master’s report. Husband’s
contentions were expressed as follows:
1.The support master erred by failing to make a downward adjustment in APL owed
to Wife in light of the monthly mortgage payment on the marital residence of
$3,344.00 [sic, $3,443.70; See Def.’s Ex. 2], which is greater than 25% of
Husband’s net monthly income. Rule 1910.16-6(e).
2.The support master erred by not using Wife’s actual income as set forth on her
pay stubs.
3.The support master erred by basing Husband’s annual income on Husband’s 2010
tax return in determining support in 2011 as Husband presented evidence that his
income will be lower in 2011.
4.The support master erred in basing Husband’s annual income on his 2010 tax
return when Husband presented evidence of his actual income and expenses for
2011.
5.The support master erred by not making an upward adjustment to the child
support owed to Husband in consideration the [sic] parties’ respective parenting
time with the children. Rule 1910.16-4. Husband has the children 100% of the
time and Wife has not seen children since entry of the July 15, 2010 order.
6.The support master erred by not considering the unusual needs and fixed
obligations and liabilities of the parties which are being paid solely by Husband
without contribution from Wife. Rule 1910.16-1. Husband presented evidence
that his monthly expenses exceed his income and that he is solely paying on the
parties’ substantial marital debt. Under the circumstances, it was not appropriate
to suggest that Husband attempt to get reimbursed later through equitable
distribution, especially since the parties’ [sic] currently have a negative net worth.
7.The support master erred by failing to consider the standard of living of Husband
and the children. Rule 1910.16-5(b)(7). Husband testified that for a period of
time he had resided in a trailer with the two youngest children while he expended
funds to restore the marital residence which had been severely damaged by Wife
when she vacated the residence. Husband supports three children plus two adult
children and his business is struggling, partially as a result of Wife’s actions.
Wife has no dependents [sic?] except herself and she is not contributing to any
marital debt.
8.The support master erred by failing to determine that Wife’s income is sufficient
to support her needs. Wife’s [sic] testified to her expenses and they were
substantially less than her income.
9.The support master erred by failing to require Wife to provide health insurance
coverage for Husband and the children since it is available to her through her
employment at a cost substantially lower [sic] than 5% of her net monthly
income. 23 Pa.C.S.A. §4326(a); and Rule 1910.16-6(b)(3).
10.The support master erred by failing to deviate from the guidelines in consideration
of Husband’s actual expenditures and special circumstances and the fact that
6
Husband’s situation is unique and there are no similarly situated cases. 23
Pa.C.S.A. §4322(a)(3); Rule 1910.16-1. Wife has very limited rights of
supervised visitation with the parties’ two youngest children which have not yet
occurred since entry of the July 15, 2010 court order. Wife has no rights to the
parties’ 18 year old daughter who is still in high school.
Pl.’s Exceptions to Supp. Master’s Rep. and Rcmd at 1-2.
In response, Wife set forth as new matter in Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Exceptions
to the Support Master’s Report and Recomendations [sic] that Husband breached an agreement
to pay $2,500.00 in APL. Wife asserted in her accompanying brief that the master erred in
13
failing to determine that the July 15, 2010 agreement was a binding contract.
Statement of Law
APL and the Uniform Support Guidelines. APL is a temporary support order that may be
granted to a spouse during a divorce proceeding. Busse v. Busse, 921 A.2d 1248, 1254 (Pa.
Super. Ct. 2007). It is designed to provide a spouse with an equal opportunity to defend him or
herself when, in theory, the other spouse has “major assets which are the financial sinews of
domestic warfare.” Id. The Uniform Support Guidelines—Pennsylvania Rules of Civil
Procedure 1910.16-1 to 1910.16-6—govern the determination of APL. See Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-
1(b). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court first promulgated the Guidelines in 1989 to provide
consistency, fairness, and efficiency under the law. See Ball v. Minnick, 648 A.2d 1192, 1198
14
(Pa. 1994). To calculate APL, the trial court must determine each spouse’s income (Rule
1910.16-2) and compute the presumptive amount of APL pursuant to Rule 1910.16-4. APL
adjustments may be made for child support (Rule 1910.16-3) or for other expenses (Rule
13
Def.’s Br. Resp. to Pl.’s Exceptions to Supp. Master’s Rep. and Rcmd. See paragraph eleven of the
argument section. Defendant’s brief does not contain page numbers.
14
See Pa. R. C.P. 1910.16-1 Explanatory Comment—1998 (setting forth the purposes of the Guidelines).
7
1910.16-6). The trial court has discretion to deviate from the Guidelines pursuant to Rule
1910.16-5 if it would reach an otherwise “unjust” or “inappropriate” result. Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-
1(d).
Determination of Income and Support Obligation. Rule 1910.16-2 deals with the income
calculation for determining a party’s support obligation. It provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
(a) Monthly Gross Income. Monthly gross income is ordinarily based
upon at least a six-month average of all of a party’s income. The term “income”
[encompasses] . . . many types of income including, but not limited to:
(1) wages, salaries, bonuses, fees and commissions;
(2) net income from business or dealings in property;
(3) interest, rents, royalties, and dividends;
. . . .
(8) other entitlements to money or lump sum awards without
regard to source, including lottery winnings, income tax refunds, insurance
compensation or settlements; awards and verdicts; and any form of
payment due to and collectible by an individual regardless of source.
Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-2(a) (emphasis added). Under the Guidelines, the trial court must only
consider funds actually available to or received by the party. Fennell v. Fennell, 753 A.2d 866,
868 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000). Hence, a tax allowance for the depreciation of business assets is not
income because such expenditures reflect debt financing rather than the retention of cash flows.
15
Labar v. Labar, 731 A.2d 1252, 1255 (Pa. 1999).
15
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has described depreciation as an “accounting mechanism”
that allocates the original cost of an asset over time. Labar, 731 A.2d at 1255. When a
depreciation expense is claimed on a corporate tax return, the result is a “marginal income tax
savings,” not an increase in income. Id.
8
Adjustments to the Basic APL Obligation. APL may be adjusted according to the noted
expenses in Rule 1910.16-6. Relevant to this case is Rule 1910.16-6(e), which, in part, provides
the following:
If the obligor is occupying the marital residence and the mortgage payment
exceeds 25% of the obligor's monthly net income (less any amount of spousal
support, alimony pendente lite or child support the obligor is paying), the court
may make an appropriate downward adjustment in the obligor's support
obligation.
Pa. R. C.P. 1910.16-6(e). The provision’s main purpose is to recognize “justice and fairness” in
certain circumstances. Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16(6) Explanatory Comment—2006.
Deviation from the Guidelines. The trial court may choose to deviate from the
presumptive amount of APL support after considering the following factors:
(1) unusual needs and unusual fixed obligations;
(2) other support obligations of the parties;
(3) other income in the household;
(4) ages of the children;
(5) the relative assets and liabilities of the parties;
(6) medical expenses not covered by insurance;
(7) standard of living of the parties and their children;
(8) in a spousal support or alimony pendente lite case, the duration of the
marriage from the date of marriage to the date of final separation; and
(9) other relevant and appropriate factors, including the best interests of
the child or children.
Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-5(b). If the court deviates from the Guidelines, it must provide justification
on the record. Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-5(a).
9
Subsequent Modification of an APL Award. An APL award may be subsequently
modified or vacated. Litmans v. Litmans, 673 A.2d 382, 388 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996). The party
seeking to modify the order must show by competent evidence that a change of circumstances
justifies the modification. Id. When modifying an order, the trial court must examine the
“petitioning spouse’s economic circumstances.” Id. The decision to modify an APL order is
always within the control of the court. Id.
Child Support. Both parents must provide support to their children to the extent that their
respective incomes and earning capacities allow them to do so. Mooney v. Doutt, 766 A.2d
1271, 1273 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001). Rules 1910.16-3 and 1910.16-4 set forth the appropriate
method for calculating an obligor’s child support payment. An upward deviation in support may
be warranted when the obligor has little or no contact with his or her children because the
Guidelines incorporate an assumption that children spend thirty percent of their time with the
obligor parent. See Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-4 Explanatory Comment—2010.
Review of Exceptions to Support Master’s Report. Each spouse has the right to file
exceptions to the support master’s report and interim order within twenty days. Pa. R.C.P.
1910.12(f)-(h). If no exceptions are filed as to certain issues in the master’s report and interim
order, those issues are not presented for review. Id.; see, e.g., Com. v. Bankert, 441 A.2d 1304
(Pa. Super. Ct. 1982) (holding that failure to file exceptions to order of support waived issue as
to whether entry of support order for higher education constituted undue hardship).
On review of a support master’s report, a trial court is to employ the same standard as is
applicable to review of a divorce master’s report. Goodman v. Goodman, 533 A.2d 1033, 1035
(Pa. Super. Ct. 1988). The report should be given the “fullest consideration,” particularly with
10
respect to the credibility of witnesses. Id. However, the report is advisory only, and when
exceptions are filed the court must conduct its own review of the evidence to determine whether
the master’s recommendations to which exceptions are taken are proper. Id.; Moran v. Moran,
839 A.2d 1091, 1095 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003).
Application of Law to Facts
Determination of Income and Support Obligation. In the present case, we are satisfied
that the master’s recommendation to modify APL from $2,500.00 to $1,194.00 was in
accordance with the record. Husband presented ample evidence to show that his income was
16
substantially reduced in 2010 based on his 2009 and 2010 corporate tax returns. We believe
Wife’s contention that the July 15, 2010 agreement was a binding contract is waived because
Wife failed to file exceptions to the interim order. Pa. R.C.P 1910.12(f).
Wife contends that the master should have included as income Husband’s depreciation
deduction on his 2010 corporate tax return. We are satisfied that the master correctly excluded
it. Our Supreme Court has ruled that a tax allowance for depreciation of business assets is not
income for support purposes where it does not reflect the retention of cash flow. See Labar v.
Labar, 731 A.2d 1252 (Pa. 1999). Assuming arguendo that Wife’s contention was not waived,
the record fails to show that Husband’s depreciation deduction represented otherwise available
funds. To the contrary, Husband expended at least $15,000 to $20,000 in 2010 to refurbish
office equipment. R. at 31.
Wife’s contention that the master should have included as income a loan repayment to
Husband’s corporation is likewise without merit. Husband’s tax return indicated a reduction in a
16
Gross receipts on Husband’s corporate tax return were $547,000.00 in 2009 compared to $306,000.00
in 2010. R. at 34.
11
“shareholders” loan from $149,144.00 to $59,099.00 in 2010. Pl.’s Ex. 1. However, assuming
arguendo that the issue was not waived, Wife failed to describe the nature of the loan or the date
on which the loan was made. Simply put, the record contains no evidence to suggest that this
17
loan represented an additional source of income to Husband.
With respect to Husband’s contention that the master erred by failing to consider Wife’s
income as sufficient to support her needs, the master correctly ignored Wife’s monthly expenses.
Significantly, there is no requirement under the Guidelines for a separate demonstration of
financial need. Rather, the Guidelines state, in most cases, “a party’s living expenses are not
relevant in determining that party’s support obligation.” Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-1 Explanatory
Comment—2010. Moreover, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has found that only the
petitioning spouse’s economic circumstances (Husband in this case) should be reviewed in a
petition to modify a support order.
We are satisfied that the master did not err by failing to use Wife’s overtime pay stub to
calculate her net monthly income. Rule 1910.16-2(a) states that income is ordinarily based on at
least a six-month average. Wife testified that she earned $1,872.00 in gross income without
overtime and presented one bi-weekly pay stub for $2,494.50 with overtime. The master did not
err in his $2,196.00 estimate because Wife testified that overtime was not always available. R. at
56.
Similarly, we are satisfied that the master did not err in using Husband’s 2010 corporate
tax return to estimate his net monthly income. The master’s proceedings took place on January
17
See, e.g., Diament v. Diament, 816 A.2d 256 (Pa. Super Ct. 2003) (holding that trial court acted within
its discretion in excluding a $100,819.00 loan repayment made to former husband by his company from
amount of income available for spousal support where former wife did not clarify total amount of loan,
nature of loan, or date of loan).
12
25, 2011. Husband presented three e-mails from the fall of 2010 indicating that his income
might decrease in 2011. These e-mails, however, were simply not specific enough to allow the
master to correctly ascertain Husband’s 2011 income.
Husband also contends that the master should have decreased APL owed to Wife because
his mortgage payment on the marital residence is greater than twenty-five percent of his net
monthly income. We are satisfied, however, that the master acted reasonably in this regard,
seeking to promote “justice and fairness.” Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-6 Explanatory Comment—2006.
The master found that a downward adjustment was not warranted because Husband paid his
mortgage (and other expenses) from business accounts, thereby skewing his income for support
purposes. Supp. Master’s Rep. and Rcmd. at 3. In addition, he found that Husband permitted his
two emancipated daughters to reside in the marital residence without monetary contribution. Id.
Husband also contends that the master should have deviated from the guidelines based
on his financial obligations and overall standard of living. The record, however, does not
support Husband’s position. It does not reflect that Husband’s standard of living has changed,
nor is there a suggestion that Husband cannot afford his monthly expenses. Given the Husband’s
disorganized accounting practices, we are inclined to rely on the master’s credibility
determination that Husband was attempting to skew his support obligations by combining
corporate and personal expenditures.
Child Support. Husband complains that the support master should have increased child
support owed to him because Wife has not seen her children since July 15, 2010. This
suggestion is clearly disingenuous. Wife cannot earn visitation rights with her children until she
undergoes counseling. At the time of the master’s report, Husband cancelled health insurance
13
coverage to Wife and children, thereby delaying the reunification process. Clearly, these
circumstances do not warrant any deviation from the guidelines.
Medical Insurance. Husband has also failed to provide evidentiary support for his
assertion that it is Wife who should provide health insurance coverage. Husband claims that
health insurance coverage is available for “Husband and the children” through Wife’s
18
employment at a cost less than five percent of her net monthly income. However, the record
shows that the cheapest plan for Wife and children, without Husband, would be greater than
19
that. The master indicated in his report that Husband had applied for CHIP benefits. Once
Husband receives approval for such benefits (or for any other insurance), Husband may file a
petition to apportion the cost of the premium according to the respective net monthly incomes of
Husband and Wife. See Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-6(b)(3)(iv).
For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss Husband’s exceptions in this case and enter the
following order.
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of July, 2011, the exceptions of the plaintiff are
DISMISSED. The interim order of court dated February 1, 2011, is herewith made a final order
of court.
BY THE COURT,
_______________________________
Kevin A. Hess, P. J.
18
The non-custodial parent bears the initial responsibility to obtain health insurance for her children if it
is available at a “reasonable cost.” Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-6(b)(3). “Reasonable cost” is less than five
percent of the obligor’s net monthly income. Id.
19
The cheapest plan is $144.06 bi-weekly for Wife and children. Def.’s Ex. 10. This plan would have
cost roughly 6.5 percent of Wife’s net monthly income. The equation is [$144.06/$2196= .065]
14
TONY DOUGLAS SAMENTO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
Vs. : CIVIL ACTION – LAW
: NO. 09-8051 CIVIL
NANCI MARIKO SAMENTO, :
Defendant : PACSES CASE: 964111413
IN RE: EXCEPTIONS TO THE MASTER’S REPORT
BEFORE HESS, P.J.
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of July, 2011, the exceptions of the plaintiff are
DISMISSED. The interim order of court dated February 1, 2011, is herewith made a final order
of court.
BY THE COURT,
_______________________________
Kevin A. Hess, P. J.
Jeanne′ Costopoulos, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Susan K. Candiello, Esquire
For the Defendant
:rlm